KUWAITI WRITER -"ISRAEL IS A LEGITIMATE STATE, NOT AN OCCUPIER; THERE WAS NO PALESTINE"

Have you ever lived there? How old are you? When is the last time you were there?

 

No, your historical narrative has been completely debunked.

 

The records say otherwise.

As in the lowlifes known as the "new historians," vermin like ilan pappe seeking to ingratiate themselves with the enemies of jews by lying about the region's history? Who was so "well-respected" in the field his "research" - better known as propaganda - has been laughed at to the point he had to move to Britain?

Why don't you list for us the names of those ottoman authorities and missionaries, I'm sure it was the ottoman's seeking to spend huge sums of money to drain swamps in a region that hadn't seen growth in six hundred years, sure. Why don't you give us a long list of them, since so many would be needed to explain how the arab population, for the first time 6 centuries, just began to spurt across a region of tens of thousands of square miles, mostly desert and swampland.

I'm also sure it was the tremendous business opportunities those missionaries created in Haifa and other cities with large jewish populations driving the 90% growth of arab muslims into them...

<Mod Edit- Rule 2, 3, 4>

 

I keep hearing pro-arab propagandists make this claim, yet they never seem to be able to do so. Successful debaters don't need to declare victory, which is why people like you repeatedly do so, and I don't.

 

Do you remember how they came into possession of the land that for five hundred years was part of the Ottoman Empire? Do you think that when the Ottomans attacked Russia, that it was in anyones heart on either side to lose land or to seize land for the sake of Jews, and to bring about the fulfillment of Jewish and Christian prophecy?

 

You just need to read the posts.

 

Yes, the Arabs fought with the British to get rid of the Turks in Palestine.. European Jews didn't fight.

 

The question is simply this, is Yehoshua Porath correct or you?Post reported for suggesting I am a paid poster by the way.

 

For the poster who linked that article from

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1986/01/16/mrs-peterss-palestine/

they might want to re-think doing so in the future. Besides the fact the author cites nothing and spouts lots of questionable claims, he does state the following:

1) "The rate of the Israeli Arabs’ natural increase rose sharply (between 1964 and 1966 it reached the world record of 4.5 percent a year) and brought about the remarkable increase in the size of that community."

Wow, the World Record for population increase, EVER, was achieved by the Israeli arabs? Wow, so amazing, except for the fact that 1964 was about 100 YEARS AFTER the time period being focused on.

2) "the natural increase of the Arabs—at least twice the rate of the Jews’—slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine. To account for the delay the theory, or myth, of large-scale immigration of Arabs from the neighboring countries was proposed by Zionist writers."

Where are his citations? What zionist writers? Who made up these so-called myths? Where did they write them?

3) " It is true that in the middle of the nineteenth century there was neither a “Palestinian nation” nor a “Palestinian identity.”"

4) "No doubt, as she claims, the Jews in Muslim countries were neither regarded nor treated as fellow countrymen and equal citizens. Islam protected their lives and most of their religious rights but also kept them in a distinctively inferior position. Legally, their status was defined by the famous “Covenant of Umar,” which listed the various restrictions and special taxes imposed on the “people of the book.”"

Still think its a good idea to be using this article after these claims? Thanks for the armaments, they've been quite helpful in my arguments.

Any more useful articles like this you want to send my way? You're doing a better job making my claims stick than I am, and I thank you for doing so.

 

All that one needs do is read the entire article to show where you have simply quote mined, then if you wish to dispute the writings of Yehoshua Porath a well known historian and supporter of the Likud party, bring some evidence to the table.

 

Again regarding the hoax book written by Peters, I shall add the final part of Yehoshua Poraths review of the book.

Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters’s book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1986/01/16/mrs-peterss-palestine/

 

You need to stop posting garbage on the forum, its really boring having to correct so many false statements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Legion

The Jewish Legion (1917–1921) is an unofficial name used to refer to five battalions of Jewish volunteers, the 38th to 42nd (Service) Battalions of the Royal Fusiliers, raised in the British Army to fight against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.

Badge of the Royal Fusiliers
Between the dissolution of the Zion Mule Corps and the formation of the Jewish Legion, Jabotinsky and Trumpeldor and 120 Zion Mule Corps veterans served together in 16 Platoon of the 20th Battalion, London Regiment.

Finally, in August 1917, the formation of a Jewish battalion was officially announced. The unit was designated as the 38th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers and included British volunteers, as well as members of the former Zion Mule Corps and a large number of Russian Jews.

====================

Any more nonsense you want to spout about topics you know nothing about?

 

Ohhhhh, so now the pro-arab propagandists want to cite a jewish Israeli, we thought they were all liars....I guess only when they agree with the pro-arab propagandists are they "reputable"....

This article contradicts itself, admitting that there was arab migration into the region from neighboring arab states, and the pop growth numbers could only have come from immigration. The pop tripled in a few decades, that was not due to birthrates, no matter how hard your new favorite Israeli historian claims.

Keep flailing, you have not proved anything.

 

Look at how long they actually served... and how many "campaigns" they actually carried out.

 

Here's a more legitimate set of comments from those responding to Porath's review:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1986/03/27/mrs-peterss-palestine-an-exchange/

"But except for mentioning one widely criticized statistic of Mrs. Peters’s regarding Palestine demography in the 1890s—with which I shall deal below—Mr. Porath does not go on to demonstrate any significant difference between her view of that history and his own. On the contrary, he joins her in accepting clear indications of what the British Mandatory authorities deemed an “abnormally high (and possibly unprecedented)” rate of increase in the Arab population in modern times. The difference between them lies simply in the reason assigned for this growth. Mr. Porath agrees with the British authorities in attributing it to “natural increase” at a rate greatly accelerated by improvements in health facilities, whereas Mrs. Peters insists it can only be accounted for in full by the immigration factor.

Unfortunately, the British, while keeping thorough records of Jewish immigration, did not keep any for Arabs migrating overland into the country, so Mrs. Peters has had to resort to circumstantial evidence, inference, and deduction to make her case. As Mr. Porath puts it, “she has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine.” And it must be granted that she has achieved ample results, though, of course, the statements she has collected are impressionistic and have no statistical value. Mr. Porath therefore maintains that “even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase.” But he goes no further than this flat assertion of his opinion against hers in challenging Mrs. Peters’s main argument."

Yet neither he nor any of the detractors I have read has taken on the most striking of her demonstrations in favor of her case, dealing with the phenomenon she calls “in-migration”—that is, the movement of Arabs from other parts of Palestine into the main areas of Jewish settlement. She shows that in the years 1893 to 1947, while the Palestinian Arab population slightly more than doubled in areas where no Jews were settled, it quintupled in the main areas of Jewish settlement. How can this difference be accounted for without including Arab migration as a factor?

==================================

There are technical issues with her research - but her central thesis stands - the majority of arab muslim growth from the 1880s forward for the next few decades was due to illegal arab immigration, not birthrates.

Porath did not offer any substance to address this fact.

 

I have been quoting him for many of the last posts, he was reviewing the hoax book you offered as evidence, the book you said was never debunked! There it is and you cannot dispute the source since he is Jewish Israeli and a proper historian unlike peters. So we have a choice, your unsupported opinion or a respected Jewish Israeli historian.

 

Ohhhhh, so now the goalposts get moved...first it was "European Jews didn't fight", now its "they didn't fight a lot."

Do you really think this debate is improving your credibility here, which has already taken a beating on other threads?

 

He is "respected" by arab propagandists because he happens to agree on a few points, but he is neither perfect nor infallible on every item. The book was attacked by various pro-arab sources and its central theme was never de-bunked in any way.

As stated above, Porath had nothing more than his opinion to apply against Peters, who at least used other sources, including pop counts, to make her case.

Do you also agree with his comments about the horrendous treatment of jews in muslim countries, or is that part of his "scholarship" to be ignored?

 

And here is Poraths reply from the same source!

In reply to Mr. Sanders, I am sorry to have overlooked the one reference in Mrs. Peters’s book to Druyanov’s collection. It is, however, characteristic of her to have ignored all the many passages in his two volumes referring to the presence of Arabs living in the areas where Jews had settled.

That is of course a minor point. Much more significant, as Mr. Sanders rightly notes, is Mrs. Peters’s demographic argument. I did not want to devote a large part of my review to discussing the 1893 statistics on the numbers of Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in all of Palestine or in the areas where Jews settled. Unlike other reviewers I preferred to argue with Mrs. Peters’s basic concepts, explanations, and methods. However, Mr. Sanders’s fair-minded letter requires some comment on demographic issues. As he notes, Mrs. Peters’s claims about Arabs entering Palestine “are impressionistic, and have no statistical value.” Mr. Pipes apparently believes they do but he gives no specific evidence of a “substantial migration of Arabs to Palestine.” I will therefore consider what Mr. Sanders calls “the most striking of her demonstrations in favor of her case”—her claim that between 1893 and 1947 the Palestinian Arab population quintupled in the main areas of Jewish settlement, contrary to the statistics in the Ottoman census.

I never claimed, however, that the 1893 Ottoman census figure of the number of Jews living in Palestine (9,817) is correct; nor do I accept that the Ottoman figure for the Muslims (371,959), also cited by Mrs. Peters from an article by K. Karpat,1 is correct. As all students of Ottoman history know, only after 1909 did the “Young Turks” government begin to draft Christian and Jewish subjects of the Ottoman Empire into the army. Therefore, until that date, it was mainly the Muslims who had good reason not to register their names with the census authorities or, for that matter, with any other official authorities, since registration made them easy prey for the draft officers. The same fear prompted them to avoid the land registers too—with disastrous results for their property rights.

As a result the official Ottoman figure for the Christian population (42,689) looks fairly accurate, whereas the figure for the Muslims is underestimated. The Jews were certainly undercounted in that census, since all the Jewish newcomers were foreign nationals who cherished their privileged status under the capitulatory regime and would have refused to have anything to do with the census authorities.

We do have plausible estimates of the population in Palestine in the very thorough analysis by A. Ruppin of the economy and society of Syria and Palestine on the eve of World War I (Syrien Als Wirtschaftsgebiet, Berlin, 1917 and 1920). Professor Ruppin was an outstanding demographer and sociologist and the head of the Palestine Office of the World Zionist Organization in Palestine. No one could accuse him of superficial work or of anti-Zionist bias. His figure for the population of all Palestine (the three districts of Acre, Nablus, and Jerusalem) is 689,275, as against 425,802 in the 1893 Ottoman census, the number presented in Karpat’s article. Ruppin and all other Jewish sources I am aware of agree that the number of Jews living in Palestine just before World War I was between 80,000 and 85,000.2 That makes the number of non-Jews living in Palestine a little more 600,000, as against the Ottoman census figure of about 415,000.


You really are barking up the wrong tree supporting peters!

 

If the Ottomans hadn't attacked Russia, France, and Great Britain, they would not have lost their empire, and there would be no Israel today. Israel is a gift to the Jews from the U.N. who also divvied up the remainder of the Empire to assorted other middle east nations such as Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan. So, either blame the Turks or accept Israels legitimacy, and go home to your families and lives.

 

He is a respected Jewish Historian full stop. And of course I agree with his views on the horrendous treatment of jews in some muslim countries.Unlike others I do not believe in two wrongs making a right. I have quoted other historians and shown the book was a fraud, even when she used sources she simply ignored the figures. Porath cites figures in his reply to the letter you showed, it is all there just read it!

 

His claim that the muslims were undercounted between the Turk census and the later ones by almost 300K people solely because of registration for the army is laughable nonsense.

Even if we use this higher total count of 690K in 1920 of muslims, their number barely 20 years later was 250% higher, which also could not have come solely from birthrate. It also does not address how they could have doubled all of a sudden from the 1880s to the early 1900s, solely based upon better medical conditions - which I asked for evidence of and you ignored. He also said:

"It is true nevertheless that during the Mandatory period the Arab population of the coastal area of Palestine grew faster than it did in other areas. But this fact does not necessarily prove an Arab immigration into Palestine took place."

Nor does it disprove mass immigration either, which he clearly seems to be biased against no matter how insubstantial the evidence is, as shown here:

"The main foreign factor that brought them about was the Mandatory government. The Zionist settlers had a clearly stated policy against using Arab labor or investing in Arab industries."

This is utter garbage and false, there were large numbers of arabs working on jewish-owned farms, so not sure why he is talking out of his rear on this.

You keep promoting Porath as infallible; he is not and has clearly made mistakes and oversights in his claims.

 

i go along with what the UN did in the late 1940's era.

 

http://www.israelhayom.com/2015/02/13/the-controversy-of-from-time-immemorial/

"Peters showed the cocksure British archivist a number of quotes that she had catalogued from Syrian, Egyptian, and British sources which supported her argument. He was totally taken aback. Then she enlisted his help in pouring over the personal memos and secret documents written by British Mandate officials. These papers proved that not only were British officials were well aware of the scope of illegal Arab immigration to Palestine, but they also acted as accomplices. Urgent written orders from licensing authorities showed that the British permitted the entry of Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians to prestate Israel without a passport or entry visa.

The appendage to one memo found by Peters shows that in May 1936, Arabs from Nigeria, Sudan, and Somalia came to Palestine "with the British army" by way of Egypt. There were also immigrant arrivals from Syria and the hijaz. Many of them came with the Transjordanian "frontier force" while a few of them were pilgrims. Some traveled on camel.

The number of documents that Peters unearthed was tremendous. Her prolific research was also a source of confusion. Some disagreed with the numbers she cited in her research, but even her critics had a difficult time contradicting what was painfully obvious -- hundreds of thousands of Arabs had settled in the heart of Jewish-populated areas. When they were expelled, they were given the status of refugees, even though they had not been here "from time immemorial.""

 

I just think its hilarious how the same people attacking Israel claiming it isn't legitimate because Western powers created it, have no issues with Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq or Syria, all of whose borders were drawn by the same "western powers."

This is the type of hypocrisy found with the pro-arab propagandists; selectively choosing when to accept and deny sources, facts, etc., depending on whether they support their chosen narrative.